Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#775561 Aug 31, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
The first could include giving someone a fabulous haircut.
HAHAHAHA!! Silly goose.

Dammit. You know how much I hate wasting beer.

“Miles from Nowhere”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#775562 Aug 31, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the "as" might've been offensive....
Or maybe the "at".
It was the k*ck part.

I have never been able to say the K word on Topix without a warning.

“Miles from Nowhere”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#775563 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Horse shit.
Studies have shown the majority of molesters of young boys are also sexually attracted to adult men.
Your opinions are always welcome.

Thanks for participating.

Milk Bone?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#775564 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's entirely ridiculous.
Heterosexual men have the same access to children as homosexual men, but homosexual men molest at 20 times the rate of heterosexuals.
Like I said, Double Flubble, stick to the bunny slopes.
Well, you being a failed/absentee parent, you probably would not see the point. Hell, I wonder if you are even allowed access to your son?

Perhaps it is not prudent to discuss this matter with a man who is not allowed to even see his own kids.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#775566 Aug 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Do you make a distinction between not believing and believing not? I do. I say that the first applies to me, that not the second.
Buck Crick wrote:
I am not the claimant of the qualities of the Christian god. The claimant is a third "person", i.e., the Bible. I am a person reading the qualities, and concluding with you that the Christian god cannot exist with the contradictory qualities, but that the claimant's description being in error is a possibility, along with the possibility that the god he describes does not exist.
So we have two possibilities:(a) the object of the description does not exist, or (b) the object of the description exists and is wrongly described. Therefore, logic cannot rule out the existence of the described object. My logic is sound on this; yours is fallacious as it excludes the middle.
Yeah, yeah, your logic is sound and everybody else's is fallacious.

I consider what you just posted - option (b) above - double talk, and have already told you as much. You can't claim this other object exists when you haven't defined what this thing that you are talking about is. Maybe the biblical misdescription to which you refer is that of an omniscient, omnipotent god that loves people perfectly, yet lets them suffer needlessly - a logical impossibility - and the correct description is that of the Populuxe-styled red toaster in my kitchen. In that case the misdescribed item actually exists. On the other hand, if this other item is a married bachelor leprechaun, then no, it doesn't exist. This is the argument you are claiming victory for making.

If the object described does not exist, it does not exist. The existence or nonexistence of this mysterious other object is irrelevant.

This is the second post in less than 24 hours that you have ignored my question, an answer I need to progress in the discussion. What these discussions become when you ignore my questions and follow them with pigeon dances announcing your victory as if such a thing were objectively decidable by you alone is a farce of no interest or benefit to me.

If you enjoy our discussions, and want to have more of them without losing my interest and cooperation, please make an effort to answer my questions, and stifle the language about your victory. You don't decide that for me.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#775567 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice yammering.
Yes, I am a loser.
A loser who is smarter than you, and can out-think you while drunk or asleep without straining a nerve.
A loser who instantly recognizes your errors of fact and logic, and can refute them on the spot with the use of memory only.
A loser who is more honest than you, with stronger character than you.
A loser who is more articulate than you, whose clarity of thought and ability for verbal expository is far superior to yours.
A loser who doesn't yammer like you just did.
A loser who would not offer a response born of personal weakness like you just did.
Yep. That's the loser I am.
Where does that leave you?
Lol. Refute them from memory? Dude, you fail in even citing sources. Epic fail. You want evidence against ID, bit you cannot offer one theoretical construct or falsifying hypothesis. Epic fail again.

I like your point, "more articulate" than me. Riiiiiiight. I am fluent in more languages than I care to name. Like I told you before, when you one day learn to speak a second language at a level that I mastered English, then I shall gladly bow to your superior use of languages. Now, however, you only show proficiency at insults and cussing. I don't care for that, thank you.

Anyways, Buck. It's time for something new from your bag of tricks vedore your periodic meltdown. Lessee: The First Ammendment. I know you are itching to tell us about it

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#775568 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, rape and heterosexual sex overlap.
So what?
Did you think you were on to something?
Odd. I would have thought that you would have tried to demonify heterosexuals after such a bit of information, too.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#775569 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
That's absurd. Lack of belief in deities motivated Stalin to murder more than 50 million people.
Lack of belief cannot motivate anything.

You seem to be implying that man or some men have a murderous impulse that religion quells, which, of course, is nonsense. But even if it were true, religion would merely be acting as an inhibitor of that impulse, the absence of which would free the actual motivator to direct behavior. That killer impulse would be the motivator, not atheism. I'll say it again: Lack of belief cannot motivate anything.
Buck Crick wrote:
You atheist apologists want it both ways - when people kill to advance a religion, it's motivated by their religion. When people kill to advance atheism, it's motivated by something else - anything else, anything you can think of.
Religion can be a motive to kill. Lack of religion cannot.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#775570 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
That's absurd.
Lack of belief in deities motivated Stalin to murder more than 50 million people.
No it didn't.
His "lack of belief" was so strong he killed to achieve a godless state of existence in Russia and other lands.
I couldn't lack a belief in deities any more than I do now.

Why haven't I killed anyone because of it?
You atheist apologists want it both ways - when people kill to advance a religion, it's motivated by their religion. When people kill to advance atheism, it's motivated by something else - anything else, anything you can think of.
Religions often come with beliefs, like the belief that your deity wants you to spread its religion.

Atheism comes with no beliefs. It provides no direction. Theism doesn't either. Nobody ever killed for theism.

“Miles from Nowhere”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#775571 Aug 31, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Straight, gay and bi men go to prison.
Any prisoner having willful sex acts with another man in prison, but is usually attracted to women, is a bisexual.
C'mon.
Straight men don't have willful sex with men.


Yes, they do.

Sex is sex, R3. It is; in no particular order.

A way to make money.(An act of survival)

A way to hurt somebody.(An act of revenge)

A way to make money.(A career)

A way to show off while hurting somebody.(A teenage boy)

A way to feel good.(masturbation)

A way to show my girlfriend that I want to make her feel like she's never felt before.( River loves Mia)

A way to make somebody submit to your authority.(The rape and fear factor)

The list goes on.

Here's the reality.

Stop labeling sexual actions as homosexual or heterosexual.

Conditions vary.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#775572 Aug 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Here's what you're entitled to, whiner, and not a goddamned thing more: the right to pray and worship in your private spaces such as your homes and your churches.
Buck Crick wrote:
Interesting. Could you direct me to the provision in the Constitution that limits free exercise of religion to specific "spaces"? For the life of me, and maybe I'm a poor reader, the only applicable provision I can find says that no such limitation of free exercise by the government is allowed. Not only does the Constitution not provide for such a limit, it specifically disallows it. Has that free-exercise clause been repealed? Or did I miss the ratification of a new amendment? Help me out here.
No, I cannot point you to words in the Constitution making that same claim explicitly.

But if all there are are privately and publicly owned spaced, and SCOTUS has determined that publicly owned spaces are off limits, all that is left is one's own private space(s), those of other Christians, and those of non-Christians. Which ones do you think are available for your religious rituals?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#775573 Aug 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Lack of belief cannot motivate anything.
Even the motivation of having others share that belief? Or "lack of belief", whatever.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#775574 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the disagreement.
The disagreement is on whether the act of a pedophile is a homosexual act if carried out on a member of the same sex.
It is.
Preadolescence isn't really a developed gender, it's a damn baby more or less.
Boys and girls at such tender ages have little differences, of course a boy has his winky , but
Gee Buck , you can hash this out all you want.
Frankly, I'm sick of the topic but you are wrong by scientific definition, but right by legal definition.
Legal definitions are crude approximations as compared to scientific ones.

“Miles from Nowhere”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#775575 Aug 31, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Buck Crick wrote:
A sexual act in prison between men is a homosexual act, whether they are gay or not.
<quoted text>
He's right.
Your hissy fit doesn't help your faux cause.
He's hardly ever right.

Your hissy fit doesn't help your ignorance of the subject. Try applying critical thought to it without bias.

That could help, yes?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#775576 Aug 31, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Religion can be a motive to kill. Lack of religion cannot.
Atheism is not about religion.

But...

Imagine a world without organized atheism:

http://markhumphrys.com/Images/200.jpg

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#775577 Aug 31, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd. I would have thought that you would have tried to demonify heterosexuals after such a bit of information, too.
Hey DF I see several very large great whites have been spotted lately. a 16 footer and a 16-18 footer. Perhaps one of these is the submarine.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusett...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#775578 Aug 31, 2014
River Tam wrote:
He's hardly ever right.
Your hissy fit doesn't help your ignorance of the subject. Try applying critical thought to it without bias.
That could help, yes?
"A sexual act in prison between men is a homosexual act"

What's wrong with that logic?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#775579 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Horse shit.
You are plugging into a recent effort by certain psychological organizations to redefine pedophilia so that the nature of the act, when it is a homosexual act, is prevented from supplying any potential stigmatization of homosexuality.
Do you think we should act to stigmatize homosexuality more, or just maintain as much stigmatization as possible?
Hiding tried this. I shredded it.
Pigeon.
We have seen this story before with the attempt to dilute the term "atheism".
That's also horse shit.
Who cares what you think?
A homosexual act is sexual activity between same sexes. Period.
A homosexual act is the act of a homosexual. Period.
It tells us nothing about orientation.
The word "homosexual" does.

I don't think the meaning of that word should change when the word "act" follows it.

Using the same word for two distinct but related things invites equivocation and miscommunication.

Since: Sep 10

Manhattan Beach, CA

#775580 Aug 31, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the disagreement.
The disagreement is on whether the act of a pedophile is a homosexual act if carried out on a member of the same sex.
It is.
I applaud and thank you for settling this matter.

But if we alter course to discuss the First Amendment, you'll have to work much harder to attempt to support your indefensible positions.

I predict that, consistent with other times I have challenged you, you'll decline to take me on.

(Other than with a "silk bloomers" comment.)

I realize the Constitution isn't your forte.

But you da man on killers for atheism and infinity and homosexuality.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#775581 Aug 31, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Yes, they do.
Sex is sex, R3. It is; in no particular order.
A way to make money.(An act of survival)
A way to hurt somebody.(An act of revenge)
A way to make money.(A career)
A way to show off while hurting somebody.(A teenage boy)
A way to feel good.(masturbation)
A way to show my girlfriend that I want to make her feel like she's never felt before.( River loves Mia)
A way to make somebody submit to your authority.(The rape and fear factor)
The list goes on.
Here's the reality.
Stop labeling sexual actions as homosexual or heterosexual.
Conditions vary.
Stop? Why? All I'm pointing out to you is fact.

I'll use your own list:

Sex is sex:

A way to make money.(Not included, we're talking willful sex acts)
A way to hurt somebody.(A man tries to make his gf jealous by cheating with another woman = heterosexual)
A way to make money.(Not included, we're talking willful sex acts)
A way to show off while hurting somebody.(River slapping Mia's ass on the way to 3rd base = homosexual)
A way to feel good.(masturbation - wait. "masturbation is sex"??? HAHAHAHA)
A way to show my girlfriend that I want to make her feel like she's never felt before.( Between two women = homosexual)
A way to make somebody submit to your authority.(Depends on gender of the two involved)

The labels are there for a reason. We all use them and we all identify as one of the three main labels; hetero-, homo-, bi-.

You have labeled yourself as a homosexual. That's all fine and dandy.

Unless you ever have willful sex with a dude. Then your label would be bisexual.

Why do have issues with the labels?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
the BIGGEST "LIE" LAPD's Tom Lange EVER told! 58 min Doctor REALITY 5
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 58 min River Tam 104,533
News Michael Jackson's doctor: 'I told the truth' (Aug '09) 1 hr Spotted Wee 394
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr RiversideRedneck 672,928
Speedway- Have You Purchased a Money order and... (Sep '09) 6 hr Neil1210 28
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 8 hr bad bob 184,571
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 12 hr Holy Child Jehova... 445,843
More from around the web